Why Women Are Exposing Themselves
I encourage you to read this very thought-provoking article by Dennis Prager on "Why Women Are Exposing Themselves." (Please note: Part 2 has some mildly explicit language.)Here's a small snippet:
Thanks to feminist doctrines that pervade education from kindergarten through graduate school, men and women increasingly believe that the sexes are largely identical. Therefore, the arenas wherein women can feel and demonstrate their feminine distinctiveness have narrowed appreciably.
By showing more of their bodies, women can announce that they are women. There are other ways young women can publicly demonstrate their distinct female identity -- for example, by wearing feminine clothing and other feminine behavior, being a wife, being pregnant and being a mother.
But those ways are increasingly ignored, deferred and discredited. Among egalitarians, being a wife is no different a role than that of husband, and motherhood is no longer regarded as distinctively female. Husbands and fathers are supposed to play identical roles, and because of the movement for gay equality, mothers have been declared unnecessary -- two fathers, most well educated people now contend, are every bit as good for a child as a mother and a father.
So, for the young woman for whom marriage, pregnancy and motherhood are remote or even undesirable given the anti-traditional education she has received, her primary vehicle of proclaiming she is a woman is literally to expose the fact.
Thanks to The Rebelution for posting this. Be sure to check out the comments on this articles as well. It is not showing up that there are any comments (at least on my computer), but there are some great comments and discussions there. By the way, I highly recommend their blog -- everything I've read is superb!
posted by Crystal Paine at 1:39 PM
10 Comments:
Dennis Prager is so wrong about so many things, I hardly know where to begin! I’ll just make a couple of observations:
1) The idea that feminism has rendered women less “powerful” is flat out wrong. When Dennis Prager says there is “power” in traditional roles what he means is “influence.” A traditional wife and mother has influence over her husband and her children. But influence is not the same as actual power.
2) I can’t believe that he is saying that pregnancy and motherhood and other examples of femininity are disdained in our culture. My goodness, our magazines stands are full of articles and photographs glorifying celebrity mothers and feminine fashion. As a woman in a traditionally male role, I can’t say I’ve ever appeared to be or been seen as unwomanly. This just doesn’t seem like an issue at all!
3) I also can’t believe Prager thinks that there are no checks on female sexuality, that a man can be fired for saying “You have great legs,” while a woman is free to come to work practically naked. Hasn’t he ever heard of company dress codes?
Uh oh.....another touchy subject! Can't we just all just get along??!!! hee hee
Sorry - I can't help myself.
I'd rather have "influence" in the lives of my loved ones than "power" over a bunch of people who really don't care a squat about me.
Just think what would happen if every woman in America used her influence within her family to nurture them and train her children correctly! Talk about social, cultural and even political transformation!
BTW, Dennis Prager is one of my favorite contemporary thinkers. Thanks for posting this article!
I'm not trying to say that worldly power isn't worth anything, when used correctly. Only that strong families are SO much more influential in the long run!
You might have power over a whole group of people as a boss of a large company, but it won't change their lives.
Having influence over a family changes lives and will effect generations to come.
I think Mr. Prager got it pretty close on the button with his article.
I'm truly glad I'm not a man in today's society. I can't imagine having to be bombarded with all the displays of flesh women give day in and day out.
I'm always glad to see that there are still men who are thankful for those women who can dress femininly without exciting passions.
I think another reason girls/women dress that way is because that is what is portrayed as beautiful. You can't hardly check out at a store anywhere without having some celebrity in your face... and that is 'beauty' for today- so girls emulate it in all its immodesty. I truly believe women want to think they are beautiful and be percieved as beautiful by others, but they go about it in the wrong way. You can be beautiful and covered. - The reality of that is overlooked though.
I think "influence" is all very well if you happen to have a husband who is open to it. But with only influence and no power, a woman is in trouble if her husband decides to ignore her or turns out to be a bad guy. Influence depends on the good will of the people one is influencing.
One of my favorite blogs (besides this one) is Feminist Mormon Housewives. They had recent post on the difference what they called "hard power" (for men) and "soft power" or influence (for women) at http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=389
By the way, I'm not knocking influence. Bit I want the option to have both influence and power, just as my husband does. And I think Prager is out to lunch when he says feminism has rendered women less "powerful."
I'm not advocating scanty dress for either sex by the way.
I agree with some of the article. I actually think I have read it before. But, I object to pants suits. I think pants suits are very feminine. Especially if you add a nice pair of heels and an attractive blouse. I wear them in the winter a lot :(
I think the main reason girls are dressing scantily is because it is the fashion and a lot of girls are very loose. BTW, not all modern fashions are immodest.
-Zan
I really appreciated Mr. Praeger's comments. I think he is right on the money.
There is a big difference between power and influence. Influence is the much better thing to have because it is an unlimited "power". I might discuss an issue with my husband and in so doing find fault with my own idea or with his. We sharpen each other. We consult the scripture for God's opinion and then it becomes part of us. At that point, anytime that discussion comes up with friends or aquaintances, the idea gets spread along. Even if our friends don't agree, they may yet hash over our thoughts with others. This is how grassroots change happens. So the traditional wife and mother has the opportunity to touch unlimited numbers of people with a single idea. The woman with power exerts her will over those under her authority. This type of power is limited by those under its law, meaning when those under authority have had enough, the power switches hands. The American Revolution comes to mind. A union strike also presents itself. On an even smaller scale, if a large number of employees leave a workplace because of dictatorial practices of the supervisor, would it not be prudent to discipline or fire the supervisor? Women certainly have more opportunity to wield this type of power than ever before but it certainly is not superior nor preferable to the effects of influence. A woman who trades her influence for this type of power has traded her dime for a nickel because the nickel was "bigger".
It wasn't until very recently that celebrities allowed themselves to be photographed pregnant. The only one I can remember that showed a full round tummy was Demi Moore and she was naked. I doubt she would have graced the cover in a maternity dress. Pregnancy and motherhood are not glorified when we insist on showing everything except what can be covered by a well placed thigh, elbow or handful of fingers. Womanliness is more than a total of female parts. It includes a gentleness of spirit not found in one with a more aggressive demeanor. I would suggest that women in a traditionally male role might never be mistaken for a male, but may frquently be described, by many, as mannish.
Having worked for 15 years in a hospital where I was required to wear a uniform (scrubs) I would say that a dress code does little to restrict what women wear. Dress codes have little, if anything, to say about tightness, sheerness, length of skirt, or depth of neckline. If you were to ask a man, and he were to be honest, you would find that it takes very little to entice a man to impure thoughts or distraction. Women are not so muddleheaded as to not know that they can increase their chances with a little playing up of the right assets.
Post a Comment
<< Home